Maizey (Pty) Ltd v Mafa and Others (JR792/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 222 (8 June 2017)

Maizey (Pty) Ltd v Mafa and Others (JR792/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 222 (8 June 2017)

The court found that the Applicant's grounds for review were based on dissatisfaction with the arbitrator's findings rather than any reviewable irregularity. The arbitrator's acceptance of the evidence supporting the occurrence of sexual harassment was reasonable and supported by unchallenged testimony. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity or failed to apply his mind. The application was found to be without merit and vexatious, justifying a costs order against the Applicant, even though the First Respondent was represented pro bono.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 222
Parties
Applicant: Maizey (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Tshepo Norman Mafa; Respondent: Tebogo Shadwick Mafujane N.O; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2017
Case Number
JR792/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed with costs awarded against the Applicant.
Judges
M Baloyi
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Costs Award, Sexual Harassment, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Costs Award Sexual Harassment Unfair Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maizey (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Tshepo Norman Mafa

Respondent

Tebogo Shadwick Mafujane N.O

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by failing to apply his mind to the evidence and issues before him.
  2. 2 Whether the award finding the dismissal of the First Respondent substantively unfair is reviewable.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant should be ordered to pay costs despite the First Respondent being represented pro bono.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant's grounds for review were based on dissatisfaction with the arbitrator's findings rather than any reviewable irregularity. The arbitrator's acceptance of the evidence supporting the occurrence of sexual harassment was reasonable and supported by unchallenged testimony. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity or failed to apply his mind. The application was found to be without merit and vexatious, justifying a costs order against the Applicant, even though the First Respondent was represented pro bono.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed with costs awarded against the Applicant.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed with costs.